Shocking Bible Quotes

Dades

dead one wrote: »

find the word "cheating" in my babbling

The same warning applies here as it does to the Koran thread.

Mark Hamill

beerbuddy wrote: »

Yes i did read your post really i was trying to focus on this part you quoted above. In a roundabout way secular states do have a position on Gods because as in the first amendment they also guarantee the freedom of Religious expression.

How is that a position on god? Saying to people "you can do what you like as long as you don't effect other people" is not a position on the possible veracity or validity of the things people may end up doing.

beerbuddy wrote: »

Most but not all religions have a God.Some athiest religions do not of course.

Atheist religions (I assume you mean the likes of Buddhism?) cant ever have a god, as then they wouldn't be atheist, would they?

beerbuddy wrote: »

They are not recognising any God in an official sence but do recognise Religion and the freedom to express it.In that sence i think you are mistaken but it was a good point.

Recognising that people may belief in something is not the same, at all, as recognising that thing itself. I recognise that people may believe in gods that I can't even think of, but I can hardly have a position on said gods if I cant even think of them.

beerbuddy

1.Firstly i concede the point. you are indeed correct.
2.Yes i mean Buddism and Scientology and the like but i dont get the point of your reply
3. I recognise that people may believe in gods that I can't even think of, but I can hardly have a position on said gods if I cant even think of them.

Of course you can why not ?I can take a guess that they are all nuts for believing such things in the first place.
If you didnt you wouldnt be here

Mark Hamill

beerbuddy wrote: »

2.Yes i mean Buddism and Scientology and the like but i dont get the point of your reply

Looking back on what you wrote, I think that I read your point wrong, don't worry about it.

beerbuddy wrote: »

3. I recognise that people may believe in gods that I can't even think of, but I can hardly have a position on said gods if I cant even think of them.

Of course you can why not ?I can take a guess that they are all nuts for believing such things in the first place.
If you didnt you wouldnt be here

If I can't even think of a god, can't even comprehend what people may say about it, then I can't have a position on it. Can you say whether or not you believe in blfgrhhty without being told what its supposed to be?

Worztron

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-1.htm :eek:

robindch

Worztron wrote: »

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-1.htm :eek:

Hard to enter any bit of the LORD with crushed or cut naughty bits, let alone his ass-embly.

Worztron

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21

Worztron

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
Psalm 14:1

:eek:

Oh the irony! http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81385894

fitz0

You are my friends if you do what I command.

John 15:14

Worztron

I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.
– Jesus
Gospel of Matthew 10:34

At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)
Exodus 4:24-26

God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better.
He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old cow, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”
So he brought all these to Him, split them down the middle, and laid the pieces opposite each other, but he did not cut up the birds.
Genesis 15:9-10

uberalles

The Bible is 100% accurate....

When thrown at close range..

Sierra 117

uberalles wrote: »

The Bible is 100% accurate....

When thrown at close range..

It slips down to 85% if thrown in the wrong context.

robindch

Sierra 117 wrote: »

It slips down to 85% if thrown in the wrong context.

And back up to 100% if the throwee really, really believes he/she's being persecuted!

Worztron

A command of Moses:
“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:
"This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’" (1 Samuel 15:3)

St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

Worztron

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)

Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:
"So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home." (Judges 19:25-28)

St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:
"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:27)

philologos

I probably won't do this too often for my own sanity but here we go

Worztron wrote: »

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)

If you quote in full, it's best. By the by, Ephesians 5:21-33 is one of my favourite passages in the entire Bible. I read it at church recently enough. Let's have a look at the whole lot:

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

The next passages in Ephesians are all based on verse 5:21 - "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ". This starts with husbands and wives but moves on to other contexts before concluding the book.

The passage clearly is not describing a tyrannical relationship between a wife and a husband, but one that is filled with the same love as Christ had for the church. This is perhaps the reason why a marriage in the context of Christianity is a huge deal.

Worztron wrote: »

Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:
"So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home." (Judges 19:25-28)

This is rather bizarre. You do realise in Judges 20 it describes that the Israelites went to war against the tribe of Benjamin to seek justice for this rape?

The Bible very very clearly describes this as being wrong. Judges is a historical book which describes the history of Israel. So yes, it documents sin, and it documents the response towards it.

You've just proven to me that you haven't actually read this for yourself.

Worztron wrote: »

St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:
"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:27)

Romans 1 is to describe God's wrath towards humanity for sin. All kinds of sin. If you didn't isolate one verse you'd probably see this. Let's bold all the other sin that Romans 1 describes:

Romans 1:18-32 wrote:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

For people who claim to be freethinkers the idea of googling for quotes from the Bible and trusting that they present the context correctly without your own examination or thought is the antithesis of freethought.

Myrddin

philologos wrote: »

For people who claim to be freethinkers the idea of googling for quotes from the Bible and trusting that they present the context correctly without your own examination or thought is the antithesis of freethought.

I know nothing of the Bible, but its interesting you chose not to make bold, the very last sentence of your quoted passages. If this is a thread about shocking Bible quotes, surely your passage applies?

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Surely an all loving, forgiving God wouldn't never deem it that those who practice the above 'deserve to die'? Maybe I have it all out of context, as I said, I know nothing of the Bible. To me its a collection of stories & parables that are a guideline for how to live your life, not something to be taken literally. But what do I know!

philologos

EnterNow wrote: »

I know nothing of the Bible, but its interesting you chose not to make bold, the very last sentence of your quoted passages. If this is a thread about shocking Bible quotes, surely your passage applies?

I don't accept what the Bible says without thought. I've had to mull and re-mull the Gospel which I have come to believe in over and over again so I can believe it.

I chose not to make it bold because if you actually read my post you'd see:

Romans 1 is to describe God's wrath towards humanity for sin. All kinds of sin. If you didn't isolate one verse you'd probably see this. Let's bold all the other sin that Romans 1 describes:

God's righteous judgement isn't a sin

EnterNow wrote: »

Surely an all loving, forgiving God wouldn't never deem it that those who practice the above 'deserve to die'? Maybe I have it all out of context, as I said, I know nothing of the Bible. To me its a collection of stories & parables that are a guideline for how to live your life, not something to be taken literally. But what do I know!

If you read on throughout the book of Romans where this is found, you'll see that 1 and 2 present the problem that we have. We have all sinned and fallen short of God's standard. Falling short of God's standard is worthy of death, God has the right to give life, but He also has the right to save it away. A just and a righteous God wouldn't permit evil in His sight, and a just and a righteous God would punish for sin. God in His loving mercy sent His Son Jesus to stand in our place on the cross, to show us the full cost and penalty of sin, and also to show how serious it is and to rise again three days later to bring the Christian to new life in Him. Romans explains that right through from chapters 5 - 6.

Although we deserve to die as Paul puts it, God in His loving mercy has forgiven us, and not only forgiven us but showed the true cost of sin by sending His Son Jesus to die in our place on the cross and to rise three days later.

This is exactly the reason why isolating a verse without considering its wider place in a book is a bad idea. It's just bad reading skills. It'd be like me poring through The God Delusion selecting one liners out of context. That would show that I don't have a real interest to listening to what He says, and Worztron doing this to the Bible shows that He has no interest to listening to what it says.

Myrddin

philologos wrote: »

Although we deserve to die as Paul puts it, God in His loving mercy has forgiven us, and not only forgiven us but showed the true cost of sin by sending His Son Jesus to die in our place on the cross and to rise three days later.

This is exactly the reason why isolating a verse without considering its wider place in a book is a bad idea. It's just bad reading skills. It'd be like me poring through The God Delusion selecting one liners out of context. That would show that I don't have a real interest to listening to what He says, and Worztron doing this to the Bible shows that He has no interest to listening to what it says.

Your knowledge of scripture is commendable, I tip my hat to thee in that respect. But, and with all due respect to your own faith, I find my own moral compass can be a far more rewarding guide than adhering the model that God*/the Bible sets out. Not being a believer in organised religion, I think how you life your life according to your own conscience is what makes people who they are & if they're good or bad. What happens after death who is to say, but if I die a good man by my own standards, I'll die happy. Again, I fully respect your faith & the right to choose a faith/no faith is definitely a sign that mankind might be making some progress

philologos

EnterNow wrote: »

Your knowledge of scripture is commendable, I tip my hat to thee in that respect. But, and with all due respect to your own faith, I find my own moral compass can be a far more rewarding guide than adhering the model that God*/the Bible sets out. Not being a believer in organised religion, I think how you life your life according to your own conscience is what makes people who they are & if they're good or bad. What happens after death who is to say, but if I die a good man by my own standards, I'll die happy. Again, I fully respect your faith & the right to choose a faith/no faith is definitely a sign that mankind might be making some progress

My original point was phrased to Worztron who has clearly been quoting the Bible dishonestly on this thread. If atheism is really about rationally examining the case for belief rather than looking for poorly argued reasons to be dismissing it, we wouldn't be seeing efforts like these.

I don't know how an atheist can claim to have rationally rejected Christianity with a poor knowledge of what Christians actually believe to begin with.

As for atheism and morality, I have clear disagreements with the meaningless concept of relative morality but that's for another thread.

Myrddin

philologos wrote: »

I don't know how an atheist can claim to have rationally rejected Christianity with a poor knowledge of what Christians actually believe to begin with.

But surely that applies to religion too, ie being a Christian, how can you fully dismiss something like Shinto/Taoism/Umbanda etc without fully immersing yourself in them to analyse properly?

I do agree though, we're veering way off topic here. Apologies to mgods

pH

philologos wrote: »

My original point was phrased to Worztron who has clearly been quoting the Bible dishonestly on this thread. If atheism is really about rationally examining the case for belief rather than looking for poorly argued reasons to be dismissing it, we wouldn't be seeing efforts like these.

I don't know how an atheist can claim to have rationally rejected Christianity with a poor knowledge of what Christians actually believe to begin with.

As for atheism and morality, I have clear disagreements with the meaningless concept of relative morality but that's for another thread.

I love the idea of quoting the bible "dishonestly"!

I'm nor sure if you think what you're doing is "clever" or "scholarly", but it really is quite childish - It takes 2 major forms - which you yourself just demonstrated.

Bible passage says "X" - you find a passage "not X"
Bible passage says something nasty "X" - find another passage "Y" that says something nicer - tell people they should be concentrating on passage "Y" and that passage "X" is out of context.

Clearly the problem with the "rape" passage (for those who do not think women should be submissive nor possessions of men) is the act of sacrificing her to be raped is not condemned - you're probably right the passage quoted is missing context:

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

You seem to be claiming that if you read on there is more context - but there isn't - at no point is the action of sending a woman out to be raped and murdered to save yourself condemned let alone punished.

philologos

pH wrote: »

I love the idea of quoting the bible "dishonestly"!

I'm nor sure if you think what you're doing is "clever" or "scholarly", but it really is quite childish - It takes 2 major forms - which you yourself just demonstrated.

Bible passage says "X" - you find a passage "not X"
Bible passage says something nasty "X" - find another passage "Y" that says something nicer - tell people they should be concentrating on passage "Y" and that passage "X" is out of context.

Clearly the problem with the "rape" passage (for those who do not think women should be submissive nor possessions of men) is the act of sacrificing her to be raped is not condemned - you're probably right the passage quoted is missing context:


You seem to be claiming that if you read on there is more context - but there isn't - at no point is the action of sending a woman out to be raped and murdered to save yourself condemned let alone punished.

Reading Judges 19 without understanding that in the subsequent passages of Judges 20 and onwards that the people of Israel regarded the act as detestable and went to war over it is the height of ignorance.

That's called plucking a passage out of the air without a clue about what the Bible actually says about it. The Bible doesn't condone rape, and in fact in the Old Testament it is explicitly condemned as immoral on several occasions.

If you're claiming that looking to adjacent passages in a book to understand what is said about it is dishonest then I suggest that you should regard all bookreading as dishonest and vow never to read a text again.

Judges 20:1-5 wrote:

Then all the people of Israel came out, from Dan to Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, and the congregation assembled as one man to the LORD at Mizpah. And the chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 men on foot that drew the sword. (Now the people of Benjamin heard that the people of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the people of Israel said, “Tell us, how did this evil happen?” And the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, “I came to Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to spend the night. And the leaders of Gibeah rose against me and surrounded the house against me by night. They meant to kill me, and they violated my concubine, and she is dead.

The people of God assembled, and very clearly regarded the act was evil.

When passage Y is right beside X, and is referring to X clearly that's when the misquotation is obvious ignorance. If you quote the Bible without having a clue about it, then it's clear that you're not interested in listening to what it is saying and are looking for woeful reasons to dismiss it.

I wouldn't call using basic literacy skills as being intelligent, it's just about reading something properly.

pH

philologos wrote: »

Reading Judges 19 without understanding that in the subsequent passages of Judges 20 and onwards that the people of Israel regarded the act as detestable and went to war over it is the height of ignorance.

yes of course the rape was detestable and after chopping up her body, "Israel" went to war for revenge - however you're still deliberately missing the point - where is the act of sending a woman out to be raped in your stead condemned or punished?

philologos

pH wrote: »

yes of course the rape was detestable and after chopping up her body, "Israel" went to war for revenge - however you're still deliberately missing the point - where is the act of sending a woman out to be raped in your stead condemned or punished?

Judges describes what happened and the historical response to it. You do realise that Judges falls within the historical section of the Old Testament? Therefore it is explained by describing what happened and the response. It's beggars belief that people make ignorant claims about the Bible with little knowledge of it.

Judges claims that it was an evil act. The people of God met together and said it was evil.

Therefore, it is a lie to claim that the Bible regards that act as being acceptable. There are other passages in the Old Testament that also point to it being completely immoral.

What more needs to be said?

pH

philologos wrote: »

Judges describes what happened and the historical response to it. You do realise that Judges falls within the historical section of the Old Testament. Therefore it is explained by describing what happened and the response. It's beggars belief that people make ignorant claims about the Bible with little knowledge of it.

Judges claims that it was an evil act. The people of God met together and said it was evil.

Therefore, it is a lie to claim that the Bible regards that act as being acceptable. There are other passages in the Old Testament that also point to it being completely immoral.

What more needs to be said?

Well for someone who like to quote the bible all the time your claim that the bible condemns this Levite who sacrificed his concubine, is well, lacking a quote.

So to be sure - can we have the bible quote which condemns the Levite's actions?

Also your claim that to fully understand the morals of this you should read on into Judges is just digging yourself a bigger hole - you do realize that by Judges 21 (still the same silly story) the reader will encounter

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

"Well you see to fully understand how moral the bible actually is and how it condemns rape you have to read on about how it champions mass murder and sexual slavery"

philologos

pH wrote: »

Well for someone who like to quote the bible all the time your claim that the bible condemns this Levite who sacrificed his concubine, is well, lacking a quote.

So to be sure - can we have the bible quote which condemns the Levite's actions?

Also your claim that to fully understand the morals of this you should read on into Judges is just digging yourself a bigger hole - you do realize that by Judges 21 (still the same silly story) the reader will encounter

Judges 20 condemns the action. That's why judgement was brought on Gibeah.

Judges 21 doesn't describe rape, as much as you might like it to, textually there is no rape in that passage.

Therefore, it's a lie to claim that Judges 19 or Judges 21 advocates rape. Especially when we have clear condemnations in 2 Samuel and in Genesis which back this point of view up.

There's a deeper point to be tackled though:
Why do atheists insist on misquoting Scripture to make their point?

Surely if atheism was about rational inquiry into the claims of religions, we wouldn't see people google without any of their own prior investigation and quote passages that they find there on a forum without any rational scrutiny. In any case, it seems like the Christians are the ones that are examining the Scriptures, and are honestly reading them, and many atheists are quoting dishonestly and looking to websites to reaffirm their own confirmation bias.

How is that an honest approach to investigating Christianity? How is it even rational? Why is it on the basis of their respective approaches to Scripture that most Bible-believing Christians seem to have a more rational approach to reading the Scriptures than many new-atheists do?

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

Why do atheists insist on misquoting Scripture to make their point?

Because a lot of the time, the "misquoting" seems to be much more of a literal reading than some of the twists and turns the religious use to make things match up.

Common example usually found in the other forum:

"And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Looks like god used bears to kill loads of kids, but I've seen all kinds of mocking "tut tut, silly atheist" wrangling about it.

It's not someone who doesn't believe in the bible's job to try and find a way to accept it.

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Because a lot of the time, the "misquoting" seems to be much more of a literal reading than some of the twists and turns the religious use to make things match up.

In these specific examples, it was just quoting things out of context. How is it unreasonable for me to point out that all 3 passages that were quoted were ignoring the context in the following passages or in the case of Ephesians both the prior and the subsequent passages?

Am I really wrong to point out the fact that twisting a verse out of it's original context is dishonest? It's like if you wrote something and I isolated a sentence completely out of context to make it seem like you were saying something which you weren't.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

In these specific examples, it was just quoting things out of context. How is it unreasonable for me to point out that all 3 passages that were quoted were ignoring the context in the following passages or in the case of Ephesians both the prior and the subsequent passages?

Am I really wrong to point out the fact that twisting a verse out of it's original context is dishonest? It's like if you wrote something and I isolated a sentence completely out of context to make it seem like you were saying something which you weren't.

If that's the case, yes of course you might be correct. I haven't checked deep enough to tell. However, for example, in the one I posted above, it seems for example christians are almost in a perpetual state of twisting to make it seem acceptable. So I don't think your original statement- in which you didn't specify you were talking about the other poster at all- is fair at all.